Scientists warm up to Watts' work

For a weatherman who has spent most of his career in front of a TV camera or radio microphone, Anthony Watts was a little concerned about speaking in front of dozens of scientists.

"Although I'm great at giving a weather forecast, I'm a little rusty giving a scientific presentation," Watts said Friday.

During a scientific workshop this week in Boulder, Colo., Watts presented his research on hundreds of weather stations used to help monitor the nation's climate.

The preliminary results show Watts and his volunteers have surveyed about a quarter of the 1,221 stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Of those, more than half appear to fall short of federal guidelines for optimum placement.

Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners — all artificial heat sources which could affect temperature records.

Watts was surprised at how well his work was received after his 15-minute presentation.

"I was very, very worried that I would be seen as an outsider with a heretical idea," Watts said during a telephone interview Wednesday.

Watts said his findings show there are potential problems with the placement of many weather stations. Although it's not conclusive, temperature records from many stations, reposted on Watts' blog, showed notable increases after being moved closer to heat sources.

Watts hopes to purchase an advanced infrared sensor to determine the extent the artificial heat sources may be affecting temperature records.

Watts' research has drawn the attention of many across the country. Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh mentioned Watts' blog, Watts' Up With That?, during a discussion on global warming.

The research received new prominence, being cited in articles and commentary on global warming after a recent recalculation of global and U.S. temperatures at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. After adjusting for a discrepancy between two weather data sets, the recalculated data showed that 1934 was the "hottest year" on record for the United States, rather than 1998.

Although the change was a slim fraction of degree, Watts expressed concern that the numbers being talked about by the media and the public may not be fully accurate. He said his goal is to ensure the science is correct.

"At this point, I don't know if I trust the data because so many problems have been identified," Watts said.

In an e-mail posted on his Web site, James Hansen, director of the Goddard institute, wrote that "contrarians" were making a bigger deal about the error than it merits. He called the error insignificant — a hundredth of a degree Celsius for the U.S. temperature record. The global temperature record was unchanged and shows a long-term warming trend.

"I believe that these people are not stupid; instead they seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story," Hansen said.

Watts said independent verification of information is part of the scientific process. He acknowledges the different methods of recording temperatures all show warming, but he wants to know the cause.

While many believe humans are leading contributors to global warming, Watts has theorized the sun may play a bigger role. He said the data deserves a second look, especially because of the large amount of money involved.

"If I'm proven wrong, so be it — that's the way of science," Watts said.

Watts and his volunteers are continuing to investigate the 1,221 USHCN observer stations. The stations are monitored by a branch of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, said he's aware of Watts' work.* He said his center invites anyone with expertise to contribute to the scientific process.

"I think any effort to better understand the observation system that's used to collect data and analyze it is helpful," he said.

For the USHCN stations being checked by Watts and others, Lawrimore said there are checks to ensure the data is accurate. Some stations are placed on less-than-ideal sites, but he said it's important to note the impact of those has been analyzed and accounted for.

"While there are some stations that are poorly sited, it has not affected our ability to detect how our climate in the U.S. is changing," he said.

In addition to the USHCN, Lawrimore said the center uses numerous sources to monitor climate, including other surface temperature stations, satellites and ocean buoys.

"We don't rely on a single network or a single set of stations to understand how the climate is varying and changing," he said.

NOAA is working on a new network of weather stations called the Climate Reference Network. Lawrimore said the new system is being built with climate in mind and is geared to avoid artificial factors that affect readings.

For current USHCN stations, Lawrimore said proper placement is a key criteria for stations that move or are modernized.

Correction, Aug. 31, 2007: The original version of this story incorrectly stated Jay Lawrimore's title. Lawrimore is the chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center. Return to corrected sentence.